Protection and justice for all (Exod 21:18-36)
Exod 21:18-36
As a relative newcomer to NZ, I am nevertheless aware of Māori who rightly feel bitter about their historic grievances (loss of ancestral land, destruction of their identities and their way of life) whose impact reaches into the present and creates disadvantages financially, educationally, socially.[1] I do not want to minimise their pain especially as systemic injustices go much deeper than incidental and individual ones. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that our sinful nature has the tendency to grab power and take advantage when the opportunity arises, and no one is exempt from that. I well remember a class during my language teaching days, where a student of mine from a so-called ‘marginalised’ group disrupted the class by taking phone calls, going out and then coming in several times during a session. Given the institution’s stance and some past experience, I wasn’t confident that speaking out against such behaviour would get me anywhere, so I swallowed my anger and ignored the interruption. Afterwards, I pondered the paradox of how easily power structures can shift and reverse the positions of the powerful and the powerless. Thus, the powerless in one setting can wield power in another and people can be both in the centre and in the margins depending on specific situations.[2]
Today’s reading does not single out the marginalised for special treatment. Rather, it aims at justice and the protection of the law for all. This is ensured not only for free people engaged in a fight (Exod 21:18-19), or for third parties harmed accidentally (Exod 21:22-25) but also for slaves and masters. In Exod 21:20-21 a slave is being disciplined (indicated by the reference to the rod) and this is legitimate for misdeeds or laziness in the ancient world. However, if the slave dies then the owner ‘was to suffer vengeance’ (the meaning of the Hebrew in v.20), which evokes the judicial process of a kinsman hunting down the murderer (see my post on this here). Here the community is likely to act on the slave’s behalf.[3] Thus, a master cannot get away with unduly harsh treatment even if on legitimate business.
However, if the slave gets better in a day or two (literally ‘if he stands [in?] a day or two’), then there is no further punishment because the owner has already lost out on the labour of his slave. Alternatively, the clause might mean that the slave survives for a day or two (and then dies). Thus, if it is less clear that the beating caused the death then the master is given the benefit of the doubt. However, purely wanton cruelty (the slave’s eye or tooth is knocked out) is unacceptable and leads to the release of the slave (Exod 21:26-27). The financial loss incurred by the owner acts as a deterrent against brutality to slaves. While the overall treatment of slaves may still feel harsh to us, it nevertheless affords protection for slaves unheard of elsewhere in the ancient Near East.[4]
It is also noteworthy that throughout these laws, neither gender, nor social status, nor age should affect the course of justice (Exod 21:20, 22, 26, 31 — likely indicating minors). Even animals are not exempt; if they kill someone, their life is required and no one may profit by eating the meat (Exod 21:28). This, once again, highlights the high value God places on human life (Gen 9:5). If the animal had a pre-history of aggressive behaviour and the owner did not contain it, then he is held responsible for any deaths (Exod 21:29-32). However, since the animal’s life is already taken as punishment, the owner is allowed to redeem his life by monetary compensation.
Although the ins and outs of these laws are hard for us to follow embedded as they are in Israel’s ancient context, the takeaway from all this is that God wants fair and just treatment for all, not only in a lawcourt scenario but outside of it. Opportunities to take advantage present themselves from time to time. For instance, the cashier in the shop accidentally gives us more change than what is right – do we correct him? We are friends with the boss, who is more lenient about our absences from the workplace – do we use it to our advantage? A female pastor I know refuses to accept invitations to speak where the motivation is simply to feature a woman. She does not want privileged opportunities because of her gender. Once again, these laws requiring Israel to be fair reflect God’s character who will not take advantage or judge unfairly no matter whether one is in the margins or in the centre.
[1] Māori are a Polynesian people who came to inhabit New Zealand around 1300s, long before Europeans started settling here in 1800s.
[2] The Jewish tax collector has the power to extort money from fellow Jews and line his own pockets, but as a collaborator with the Romans, he is despised and classed with ‘sinners’ by the Jewish religious leadership. A Jewish leper is ritually unclean and therefore on the margins of society, yet, as a Jew has first claims on God’s kingdom in comparison to a Gentile (Matt 10:5-6; 15:24-26).
[3] Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: JPS, 1991), 124. Sarna also notes that rabbinic interpretation has also understood the phrase ‘to suffer vengeance’ to mean the death penalty (they interpreted it as decapitation).
[4] T. Desmond Alexander, Exodus, AOTC (London: Apollos; Downers Grove, IL: IVP), 489.
For interest – ‘An eye for an eye’ (Exod 21:23-25)
The principle called lex talionis (or law of retaliation) is a source of several misunderstandings. First, in everyday parlance, people associate it with revenge. In reality, this has nothing to do with personal vendetta, but functions in the judicial process as an important rule to ensure proportionate punishment that is neither less nor more than the crime.
Secondly, it is assumed that the principle is practised literally and is therefore seen as barbaric. It is true that in some ancient cultures it was indeed applied this way. In Hammurabi’s law code, for instance, we see this worked out in detail.[1]
196: If a seignior [nobleman, freeman] has destroyed the eye of a member of the aristocracy, they shall destroy his eye.
197: If he has broken a(nother) seignior’s bone, they shall break his bone.
198: If he has destroyed the eye of a commoner or broken the bone of a commoner, he shall pay one mina of silver.
199: If he has destroyed the eye of a seignior’s slave or broken the bone of a seignior’s slave, he shall pay one-half his value.
It is noteworthy that social status makes a difference to the penalty. It is only when the injury is to someone of equal rank or higher that lex talionis is applied literally. Otherwise, there is a fine to pay.
Even more shocking is the application of this law in Hammurabi’s code when it involves the vicarious death of an innocent person (I include the previous law in 209, so 210 makes sense).
209: If a seignior struck a(nother) seignior’s daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus.
210: If that woman has died, they shall put his daughter to death.
Compare this to Ezekiel 18:20 (though admittedly this is from a much later period).
The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
It is clear from the laws in Exodus that the lex talionis was not applied literally. In Exod 21:18, the injured party is looked after and paid for the loss of his time and in Exod 21:26-27, the damage to slaves’ eyes, teeth (and so on) are balanced by the granting of their freedom. Although ‘life for life’ seems to hold water in biblical law, other injuries were compensated for in proportionate measure financially.
[1] All quotations of Hammurabi’s law here and further below are taken from “The Code of Hammurabi”, trans. Theophile J. Meek, in James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (third ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 163-180.
If you have enjoyed this post, please share it with others.